AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	At'SN/SSAN

I     TYPE
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA TlON Oil COUNSEL

VOTE OF p!E BOARD

HON	GEN

UOTllC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES
A93.09

INDEX NlJMBER
A67.90	I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
llf..ARING DATE
15 Jul 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-0096

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

	
APP,,IJCJ.ISS\J"E Al'ID THE J!QAJW'. DECISIONAL ,rotnoNl'it AR'l>'D!SCUSSED ONcTI:Jll AITA
11.EMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Boa rd, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.	
'  ' ;
SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002	

E RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD03-0096	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The board finds that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: Applicant does not contest his discharge. He states that his credit is now good; he's a homeowner, and well established in his career. He also states that he thought his discharge would be automatically upgraded after six months. The record indicates the applicant received three Article l5s, the first for using his government credit card for personal use, the second for failure to pay just debts and for writing bad checks, and the third for driving while drunk. He also received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for the drunk driving charge. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure  from  conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge  received  by the  applicant  was found to be appropriate. The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:   The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for
upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief